Bifeng Liu v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 10-2342 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2342 BIFENG LIU, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted: June 9, 2011 Decided: July 19, 2011 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stuart Altman, LAW OFFICE OF STUART ALTMAN, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Ada E. Bosque, Senior Litigation Counsel, Lindsay Corliss, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Bifeng Liu, a native and citizen of the People s Republic of China, petitions for review an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( Board ) denying his motion to reopen. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2011); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992); Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400 (4th Cir. 2009). The Board s denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed with extreme deference, given that motions to reopen are disfavored because every delay works to the advantage of the deportable alien who wishes merely to remain in the United Sadhvani v. Holder, 596 F.3d 180, 182 (4th Cir. 2009) States. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The motion shall state the new facts that will be proven at a hearing to be held if the motion is granted and shall be supported by affidavits or § 1003.2(c)(1) appears material to the and other evidentiary (2011). It Board was that not material. shall not evidence available be sought and granted to could discovered or presented at the former hearing. This court has also recognized 8 be not C.F.R. unless it offered is have been Id. three independent grounds on which a motion to reopen removal proceedings may be denied: (1) the alien has not established a prima facie case 2 for the underlying substantive relief sought; (2) the alien has not introduced (3) where previously relief is unavailable, discretionary, material the evidence; alien would entitled to the discretionary grant of relief. and not be Onyeme v. INS, 146 F.3d 227, 234 (4th Cir. 1998) (citing INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05 (1988)). motion to reopen This court will reverse a denial of a only contrary to law. if it is arbitrary, irrational, or Mosere, 552 F.3d at 400 (internal quotation marks omitted). In proceedings, the a context prima of facie a motion showing to reopen includes immigration not only that there is a reasonable likelihood that the statutory requirements for the relief sought are satisfied, but also a reasonable likelihood that a grant of relief may be warranted as a matter of discretion. M.A. v. INS, 899 F.2d 304, 310 (4th Cir. 1990) (quoting Marcello v. INS, 694 F.2d 1033, 1035 (5th Cir. 1983) (emphasis omitted)). We conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion finding that Liu failed to make a prima facie showing that he was eligible for asylum. fell short of showing that he The evidence Liu submitted had a well-founded fear of persecution by the Chinese government based on his political activities here in the United States. 3 Accordingly, dispense with oral we deny argument the petition because the for facts review. and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
